Reader view: Edmonds can no longer thrive on a flawed funding model

1. Thank you Susan for your leadership for making the hard decisions to put our city and our citizens’ future first!

   • I agree. I think Council Member Paine explains exactly why we need to vote yes. We are a city of residents with a sprinkle of businesses here and there and property tax is the major funder for our city. It is amazing that Edmonds has remained such a nice place for visitors and residents despite those tax restraints. Now is the time to invest in our community as Edmonds looks to diversify how it raises money. I feel it is a great bargain to invest my dollars in taxes and get such a nice place to live. I don’t need to travel anywhere else because Edmonds is a great place to spend my free time.

     I also hope statewide there is a push to expand the deferral option to help those with lower incomes find relief from a percentage of their property taxes until they sell their homes. That has to be done at the state level though. The city has no power to do that.

     • Arlene:
       Property tax is the major funder for our city, but it accounts for only about 25% of total revenue; other sources account for 75% of the city’s revenue.
       I urge waiting until November, when we’ll hopefully have two new council members, to support giving the council more of our money to spend. This current group of elected officials have wasted much too much of their revenues.

       • Mr. Wambolt, Property taxes account for about 30% of the general fund and sales taxes about 25 percent and business taxes about 14%. You can’t count utility, stormwater, and sewer fees because those are dedicated funds. Sales taxes are very regressive, hurting low income more as a percentage of their income. Businesses don’t want any more business taxes according to Erika Barnett. So that leaves property taxes, where at least larger homes and land acreages have to pay more. So property taxes are in the middle of regressive sales taxes and progressive income taxes (where the percentage rises as incomes rise), but Washington voters have voted down income taxes. I also do not agree with your dismissive attitude toward the City Council. They make very little each year (about $20,000) for the tremendous amount of time they spend to do the City’s work. I don’t always agree with every decision they make, but I respect all of them for the time they dedicate to our city.

2. Ya we can’t survive on the flawed business model. A new model is necessary to sustain Edmonds into the future, but this levy does nothing to that end.

3. No thank you, Susan.

4. You want us to believe you’re writing as a “private citizen.” What does that even mean? It’s completely disingenuous. You don’t get to separate your title when you’re part of the same mayor and council team that has failed to right the ship in Edmonds.

   Over the past several years, this administration has pushed through utility rate hikes, the RFA levy, stormwater increases, transportation fees — and now another massive property-tax lift under Proposition 1. Add a proposed B&O tax to the mix, and residents and small businesses are being squeezed from every direction.

   We’ve got $4.3M missing from the Nelson / Rosen transition. Where are you on that?

   Let’s be clear: you can preserve Edmonds’ small-town charm and invest strategically. They aren’t mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, you’re part of the status quo — avoiding the difficult, expertise-driven decisions needed for a thriving city.

   We need subject-matter experts guiding Edmonds, not another layer of well-intentioned “non-profit executives” trying to shape municipal policy with statewide implications. You don’t run a city like a charity. You run it like an organization that demands efficiency, transparency, and measurable results.

   Taxing your way out of inefficiency isn’t leadership. It’s avoidance. Edmonds deserves professional, data-driven management — not another emotional appeal to “just trust us” from the same voices that created this mess.

5. Susan Paine is correct. There is a flawed business model. The flaw is the city leadership. Fortunately, there is a solution. Vote No, then vote to elect Erika Barnett and Glenda Krull to our CC to provide new financial stewardship.

6. Thank you, CM Paine, for sharing your perspective. That said, I’m still waiting for a clear explanation regarding a recurring claim—one you’ve echoed—that the city has made $8 million in “brutal cuts” to staffing and services. I’ve reviewed the adopted budget, and the numbers simply don’t support that assertion.

   This excerpt from the budget outlines wage and benefit allocations for city staff since 2022:

   https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/laborexpenditures.png

   Where, exactly, are these substantial reductions? The figures show consistent increases, not cuts. Aren’t the budget documents the legal mechanism by which taxpayer money is allocated rather than some spreadsheet of headcount I see floating around?

   Additionally, the notion that Edmonds is struggling because revenues haven’t kept pace with inflation continues to circulate. But again, the data tells a different story.

   This chart—sourced directly from the city’s comprehensive financial reports going back to 2003—shows that total revenues have consistently outpaced inflation:

   https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/growthrateVCpi.png

   Property taxes are just one component. The city benefits from multiple revenue streams, and collectively, they’ve grown faster than the cost of living. These facts deserve acknowledgment in any honest discussion about fiscal policy.

   Let’s ground our decisions in data—not talking points.

   • Jim, so aggregate revenue growth automatically eliminates a structural gap in the General Fund?

     • Jeremy,

       No, the issue isn’t simply about whether revenue grew—it’s about how that revenue was allocated. When total city revenues consistently outpace the Consumer Price Index, as Edmonds’ have over the past two decades, it signals that the problem isn’t insufficient income. It’s structural misalignment.

       In other words, the city didn’t fall behind because it lacked resources—it fell behind because it failed to manage those resources strategically. Instead of investing in long-term stability, leadership chose short-term spending increases, depleted reserves, and postponed hard decisions. That’s how a structural gap forms: not from a lack of revenue, but from a mismatch between recurring expenses and sustainable funding sources.

       This is especially true when one-time revenues—like federal ARPA funds or internal loans—are used to plug holes without addressing the underlying imbalance. It creates the illusion of solvency while masking the need for reform.

       So yes, there are other factors involved. Revenue growth alone doesn’t guarantee fiscal health. It’s the discipline, foresight, and transparency in how that revenue is used that determines whether a city thrives—or ends up asking taxpayers to bail it out again.

       Maybe you can help answer my questions – nobody else has stepped up to do so.

       • Jim, re your first paragraph, where’s your evidence that the cost of municipal government inflates at the same rate as the Consumer Price Index? Seems to me the bucket of goods and services that comprise the CPI is rather different from the bucket effecting expenses faced by City Hall. Why should we expect their inflation rates to be the same?

       • Roger,

         Did I actually read your comment correctly?

         Because if I did, it sounds like you’re challenging my use of the Consumer Price Index—the very metric your campaign has leaned on to justify Proposition 1. That’s rich. The entire argument for the levy hinges on the claim that property tax growth is capped at 1% annually, while inflation—measured by CPI—has surged far beyond that. It’s the cornerstone of the “yes” campaign’s narrative.

         So now, when I use that same index to demonstrate that total city revenues have consistently outpaced inflation, suddenly it’s not valid? Give me a break.

         You can’t have it both ways. If CPI is the benchmark for why we need a tax increase, then it’s also fair game for evaluating whether the city’s overall revenue picture truly reflects a funding crisis. And the data is clear: when you look beyond property taxes and include all revenue streams—sales tax, fees, grants, fines, etc. the city’s income has grown faster than CPI for years.

         So let’s stop cherry-picking metrics to fit a narrative. If we’re going to talk about fiscal responsibility, let’s do it with consistency, transparency, and a full view of the numbers—not selective framing designed to push a levy through.

       • Jim, there isn’t necessarily a disconnect between Roger’s argument and the one that says capping property tax increases at 1% is at least partly to blame for the current situation. I believe Roger is arguing that despite tax increases being capped BELOW the rate of inflation, city costs have actually risen MORE than the rate of inflation; compounding the problem. If you consider the increases in things like insurance, and raw materials as well as the impact of increased competition for high quality hires and the cost of new technology (eg body cams worn by police), I think Roger’s argument carries a lot of weight.

       • Alright, Niall—if we’re shifting the goalposts, I’ll play along.

         I encourage everyone to take a close look at this graphic, drawn directly from city budget data:

         https://d38u6hukd4et5m.cloudfront.net/GeneralFundHistory.png

         It tracks the General Fund over time. At the end of 2021, Edmonds had a robust $18 million fund balance. So what happened next? Was it inflation? No—it was unchecked spending. In just one year, the city burned through $6 million in reserves. Then in 2023, the pace accelerated even further, culminating in a fiscal emergency declaration by November.

         To avoid insolvency, the city dipped into one-time ARPA funds. And this year? We borrowed from our own utility accounts. At every step, leadership chose temporary fixes over structural reform. The underlying problem wasn’t addressed—it was ignored.

         So let’s be honest: this isn’t about inflation. It’s about a chronic lack of fiscal discipline. The data couldn’t be clearer—Edmonds has a budgeting problem, not a revenue problem.

         Niall, as someone who’s led teams and managed budgets, would you reward this kind of performance? I wouldn’t—and I won’t now. Fix the behavior first. Then we can talk about funding.

     • Jeremy — Jim is exactly right to question this narrative. No, the issue isn’t simply about whether revenue grew — it’s about how that revenue was managed… I think we are all intuitive here, aren’t we?

       Over the past two decades, Edmonds’ total revenues have consistently outpaced inflation. The problem is not income — it’s structure. The Mayor/Council as well as our ‘Volunteer’ committees have repeatedly chosen short-term spending, deferred maintenance, and one-time fixes instead of building long-term stability. That’s not a revenue gap — that’s a management gap. It’s EcoD, it’s ADA, paid parking…all of our major ‘problem statements’..you get the point.

       You’ve been part of that process — sitting on city committees, advising leadership, and shaping the policies that got us here. So help us understand: where’s the discipline, the transparency, and the plan to align recurring expenses with sustainable revenue?

       ARPA funds, internal loans, and consultant-driven “gap” narratives may buy time, but they don’t fix the underlying imbalance. Small businesses and residents deserve better than a city that spends first and writes the strategy later.

       Revenue growth alone doesn’t define fiscal health. Competence does. It’s time for real subject-matter expertise at City Hall — not another cycle of emotional appeals and bailout levies.

7. I respect that CM Paine is expressing her ‘personal opinion.’ Recently our Director of Parks did the same. Both opinions mirror the talking points coming out of the City. I’m curious if other paid employees are free to express their ‘opinions’ if they don’t align with the talking points of the city. Can’t help but wonder if there would be repercussions for an employee promoting the NO vote.

   • Of all people in Edmonds, surely the council members who voted to put this measure on the ballot are entitled to explain their thought processes in the pages of My Edmonds News.

     Would we prefer that they hide behind anonymity and not display the courage of their convictions, especially when they are subjected to so much vitriol as some of the comments on this page indicate?

     Note that council member Chen who voted against putting this measure on the ballot also expressed his opinion in these pages recently.

     I am grateful to all of the people who serve our city in elected office and I am glad that they have the opportunity to communicate directly to us in this way.

     • I agree with Niall here. I wish more of our elected officials would engage in a public forum on any number of topics or issues. We have plenty to talk about.

8. Susan, your comment reminds me of the pilot who crashes a perfectly good plane, and blames a mechanical failure.
   You have been front and center in the City of Edmonds’ financial mismanagement. Just as I would choose to never again to fly with that pilot, there is no way that I can follow your advice. Unfortunately, we’ll have you on the Council for a couple of more years, but hopefully this election will decrease your influence on the Council. The City doesn’t need this Levy Lid Lift. It needs leadership that understands finance and budgets.

9. Councilmember Paine, My hope is that you will now reply here to Jim Ognowski’s comments and detail the substantial reductions in staffing and services that you continue to reference. Having made that claim, it would be helpful for us all to see the data.

   Lynne Chelius

10. Thank you Susan. Your history helped me fill in the gaps on why our city is in its current financial fix. To make Edmonds the best it can be means we do need to take a hard look at how we can diversify our funding sources.

11. I have known for several years that the city has operated on a false narrative, that it can keep its staff to population ratio low “because of our wonderful volunteers” (as a council member once cited to me). Yes, we are wonderful volunteers, but we are not pseudo employees. We do not perform work that is directed by the city, but abide by our own strategic plans while supporting the hard work of the staff where we can, as they strive to develop and implement the City’s policies, many of which, by the way, are lagging due to … lack of enough staff. Policies like the Urban Forest Management Plan, the PROS plan, and the Climate Action Plan are falling short. How on earth we can expect a dearth of employees to implement the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan Update, and the soon to be adopted Critical Areas Ordinance Update? Do we only want our City’s policies to be adopted, and not implemented? How can too few employees do the work that is required when council adopts these policies? When coupled with the City only being able to tap into 1% of Edmonds’ property tax, it is not surprising that everything is falling apart. Here is an article that explains how one past legislator views his vote on the 1% cap in hindsight: https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/small-cities-like-edmonds-need-levies-to-stay-strong/

12. This LTE reads like Bernie Madoff asking his investors for more money to keep his Ponzi scheme going. The current council and mayor have absolutely no credibility to ask the taxpayers to “trust them” to “fix the situation”.

    Based on recent articles on MEN, the city is already in $90 million debt. The city appropriated (legally or nor remains in question) more then $6 million in funds originally allocated to pay for fire services. This Levy thing started at $6 million and now suddenly popped to over $16 millions. And here’s the cherry, inflation adjustable. So, double tax. First the properties go up at an arbitrary rate (usually above inflation) and then go up again to “adjust for inflation”. Does that lot believe everyone has a lobster IQ?

    Voting NO is more than rejecting this absurd tax increase by individuals that have been demonstrating to be inept to manage money, let alone a city (and some want to be reelected – laughable) and that will evict many from their homes.

    Voting NO is telling that lot that enough is enough. They have been destroying Edmonds with that “high density plan”, the “RFA annexation”, and whatnot. Time to stop this scam.

13. Susan, why in your large contribution to “yes,” did you list your employer as the city and your job as Edmonds City Council member? CM Tibbott didn’t do the same. So, individual or council member – which is it?

14. I agree completely that the present situation is primarily structural and has nothing to do with any alleged mismanagement. Unfortunately city revenue is made up of property tax, sales tax and B&O tax. Our city lacks a strong retail base and our taxable properties are primarily expensive single family homes, small condominiums and small apartment complexes. There is a lack of high value properties within the city.
    The solution long term is to expand the property tax base with high value retail and large residential developments. The place to do this is the 99 corridor. The are should be rezoned to provide apartments up to 8 stories in height with retail on the ground floor. Retail space needs to be more focused on goods than on groceries which do not generate sales tax. The housing can be subsidized as to income but let’s focus on Federal HUD programs and not just MFTE units.
    This will take time to implement. In the meantime there is a city to run. We can either starve the city for money and see more programs cut or we can support the levy lift until redevelopment reshapes the tax base. One last point, when developers propose projects, no NIMBYism. Pushing development to neighboring cities is why residential property taxes are high.

    • Mark,
      I would say NO. First they need to show the detailed plan (city and CM’s job), show the financials and timelines, THEN ask for more money to cover any gaps, etc. I don’t disagree with what you say in terms of developing 99, etc. but the mayor and CM have done us a disservice by throwing this levy over the fence to see if it sticks or not. A responsible mayor and CM would have detailed evaluation of revenue and expenses. They already have our list of priorities (supposedly statistically valid). The job they should have done is to say:
      Option 1: with $6M levy, based on priorities, we will have to cut/reduce these services (if any).
      Option 2: with $14M levy, based on priorities, we will have to cut/reduce these services (if any).
      Option 3: with no levy, we will have to cut/reduce these services (if any).

      That is leadership and doing the job they are hired to do – not just saying “we let people decide” and letting us “fight” over what data is right, who has what budget,…. ridiculous way to run an organization.

15. Thank you Council member Paine. I have not always been in agreement but this article regarding the city’s financial predicament is spot on! This has been a problem that has been cooking for a long time due to a lack of political spine and failure by all of us to address social and economic realities. The levy lift does not address present much less future economic needs of our community. It is unfortunately a late game Hail Mary in attempt to make the score closer but doesn’t win the game.
    There is a very good guest editorial in today’s Seattle Times describing the prior error by the voters and the state legislature to properly address potential future city funding challenges. Council member Paine’s article correctly expands on our particular community situation. I encourage everyone to also read the Seattle Times guest editorial and consider our need for increasing the city’s ability to generate more revenue.
    Thank you Susan Paine for having the courage to address our financial predicament.

16. Can’t you all just get along and give the city whatever it demands to keep itself “thriving?” Apparently the “un-flawed” funding plan is “Give us (Mayor, Council, Planning Board and Staff) everything we are asking for now so we can spend it however we like, and plan to give us more when we run out of that.” Quite the management crew you have going for you. And by all means keep ridiculing and accusing the people who want better and more efficient government in Edmonds of being a pack of liars who don’t know what they are talking about. Your elected officials certified buying a one off, supposedly state of the art waste treatment plant that is too small, doesn’t work, and is bleeding your city of thousands of wasted dollars every month; but there has been absolutely no mismanagement or bad decisions on the part of recent past and current leadership. Honestly, some people will believe anything they are told.

17. I hold no value to any of your words, Council member Paine. We all should care when anyone is assassinated on school grounds, no matter their values, faith or party. You should stand for free speech, but not to defend words of hate calling a Christian Man, a white supremacist or having no empathy for this man, that was gunned down at a University.

18. I like Mark O’s comments.
    He has good insights into why there are deficits and how to overcome them in future.

19. Neil, even though property taxes may only increase by 1% annually, the actual increase in Edmonds is significantly more given the significant year over year increase in property evaluations.
    Also, as has been previously been pointed out, some of the increases in costs are self inflicted:significant increases in insurance-partly due to too many insurance payouts as a result of City missteps, the high salary structure in Edmonds, no competition for legal services for which the City is paying too much for what we are getting(our lawyer apparently didn’t even understand the RFA contract), etc. etc.
    Finally, and most importantly, if the City can only resolve it’s financial problems by driving out many of it less affluent citizens, there is something very wrong with the ethics of that City.

20. Can someone please explain how Edmonds was able to operate with a budget surplus up until COVID? My understanding is that the city had a substantial financial reserve at that time that it was forced to spend down.

    It seems that there is more at play here than just a flawed funding model.

21. Bob, that’s not accurate. Assessed valuations of existing properties only impact the share of the total property tax assessed to those properties. They have no bearing on the total tax collected by the city.

    Let’s say, for example, that a city has $16B of total assessed value and your home is assessed at $1M. If the city raises $10M from property tax then your share is $10M x $1M / $16B = $625.

    Now suppose the AV of all property in the city doubles. Your share becomes $10M x $2M / $32B = $625! No change!

    Ok, suppose your AV doubles but everything else in the city remains the same. In that case your share becomes $10M x $2M / $16.001B = $1.249.92 which is almost double but the total collected remains the same.

    Finally, suppose new development increases the aggregate AV by $100M but existing AVs remain the same. That new development pays tax at the same rate, increasing the city total by $62,500 but your share remains at $10.0625M x $1M / $16.1B = $625. No change!

22. The complete facts about allowable property tax increases is that the city’s total property taxes can increase by 1% PLUS the taxes on new construction. The new construction taxes can add a significant amount. For example for the four years between 2021 and 2025 property taxes had a CAGR of 1.98% – from $14.7M to $15.9M.
    Individual property taxes will increase by more when their assessment percentage change is more than the average change, and will increase a lessor amount when their assessment percentage change is lower than the average change.

23. Nial, thanks for correcting me on valuation vs tax rate. That makes sense.
    That said, I stand by everything else that I wrote, but would like to add, that the developers can’t wait for the Levy Lid Lift to pass. After it does, there will be a whole lot more properties to buy up and then sell at a huge profit.

24. The reminder that besides the levy lift vote we get to choose council members is appreciated. We just received the voter information pamphlet in the mail and unless I missed something not one of the council candidates mentions the levy lift and their side of the matter. I believe it is clear where CM Eck stands and CM Chen also. Have the others proclaimed their side of the issue in other forums? Anyone know for Krull, Barnett, and Newman? Or maybe they could enlighten us. Thank you.

25. Thank you, Susan, I agree with you that we need an overhaul of how we finance our city. Other cities around us have worked on similar problems and have managed to update their financial operations so that their finances can support their needed services. Other cities, like Edmonds, have not and they are in similar conditions as are we. While it is difficult to change, and we have many residents who refuse to admit that changes are needed, it is the only way for us to adapt to new conditions. I look forward to what new processes- in both incomes and expenditures – are proposed for the future. And I am encouraged that governmental officials, like you, are looking at ways to adapt to changing times.

    • Hi all — because we have so many opinion pieces and the comments are getting a bit lengthy in all of them, I’m going to start closing some of these with numerous comments. Please know that there will be more opportunities for discussion as we will be publishing more opinion pieces each day through Thursday. (After that, no more election-related opinion pieces will be posted as the ballots are in the mail, under our previously stated policy.) — Teresa Wippel

Comments are closed.